Letter to the Editor
The elusive prognostic value of systemic endothelial function in patients with chest pain syndrome

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2006.07.069Get rights and content

Abstract

The prognostic value of systemic endothelial dysfunction still remains uncertain in ischemic heart disease. The aim of the study was to establish the prognostic value of ultrasonically assessed systemic endothelial dysfunction in patients with chest pain syndrome and to assess whether this information was incremental to that already provided by simple parameters derived from echocardiography, such as left ventricular mass index or ejection fraction. One hundred ninety-five in-hospital patients (age = 60 ± 10 years; 63 females) with known or suspected CAD have been enrolled. All of the patients underwent, on different days, coronary angiography, endothelium-dependent FMD testing of the brachial artery by high-resolution ultrasound and resting 2D-echocardiography evaluation. The result of the FMD has been defined as the percent change in the internal diameter of the brachial artery during reactive hyperemia related to baseline. All patients were followed-up for a median of 27 months. During follow-up there were 17 deaths (9 cardiac), 4 non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), and 18 late clinically-driven revascularization procedures. By a multivariate analysis, echocardiographically assessed ejection fraction (odds ratio: 2.32; 95% confidence interval: 1.24–4.33; p = 0.008) and angiographically assessed CAD (odds ratio: 2.82; 95% confidence interval: 1.40–5.67; p = 0.003), were independent prognostic predictors of events. In patients with known or suspected CAD, systemic endothelial dysfunction did not show a significant prognostic value. Echocardiographic indices of structural left ventricular damage appear to have a stronger prognostic value than functional indices of peripheral vascular damage in risk stratifying ischemic patients.

References (24)

Cited by (14)

  • Flow-mediated dilation and cardiovascular risk prediction: A systematic review with meta-analysis

    2013, International Journal of Cardiology
    Citation Excerpt :

    When inconclusive, eligibility was discussed among authors until consensus was reached. A few eligible studies did not properly report risk estimates with accompanying variance measures; these studies were therefore excluded from the quantitative analysis [21–26]. Using a standardized data collection sheet, data were extracted on (a) general characteristics (extraction date and reference information); (b) study characteristics (study objective, type of study population (diseased or asymptomatic population), sample size, country, duration of follow-up, age, body mass index, gender distribution, and medication use); (c) exposure characteristics (baseline FMD, FMD categories (e.g. based on medians or tertiles), and information on FMD methodology (e.g. cuff position and time of occlusion)); (d) outcome characteristics (number of cardiovascular events and type of events (e.g. cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke)) (e) calculated risk estimates for the association between FMD and CVD and covariates adjusted for; and (f) study quality.

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text